2 ms·

I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. If Pete is the Democratic candidate, it

I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. If Pete is the Democratic candidate, it's a freebie to the Republicans. I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate.

almostgotcaught 2y ago
> gay man i think you're wrong and i certainly don't live in a bubble. but the reason i think you're wrong is not that america is progressive enough accept a gay man but because he's basically not gay; he's absolutely the least gay presenting man in the history of gay presenting men (exaggerating a little). he has no lisp, not an ounce of flamboyancy, nothing, zilch, nada. I'm aware he's fully out and there are photos of him with his husband and child and etc. he's also young, handsome, ivy-league educated, was an officer in the military and deployed, intelligent, extremely well-spoken, and charismatic (not to mention experienced but who cares about such trivial things). he has all of the qualities that made obama successful in 2008 just swap black->gay. most importantly, and i'm not flaunting this: he's a man. so i do hope he runs because he i think he has a better chance than bernie or kamala or walz or newsom or hakeem or aoc. but hey we all know there won't be an election in 2028 anyway so what are we even talking about here lol.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  I wonder if he'd "dedicate another apse in his cathedral mind" [0] to trying to find out. The amount and shamelessness of sycophancy that modern American politicians cultivate is staggering (Trump being the chief example, of course - but seeing this with someone as relatively obscure as Pete is also spectacular). [0] https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-interview-god-beer-electric-mustang/ https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-interview-god-bee...
- kelnos 2y ago
  I really don't think any of that matters. "He can pass for straight" is not going to sway much of anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. Sure, some voters would be more comfortable with Buttigieg than with, say, a flamboyantly gay man, but overall I don't see the electorate going for him.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    You're missing the key point of my claim: in 2008 you could literally take your comment, replace gay with black, and it would've been just as "credible". And yet Obama was enormously popular and successful. Lots of people even made colorist remarks about him being "white passing"!
dragonwriter 2y ago
> I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. I think its much more likely that America would elect a gay man than any member of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Which, I mean, still means Pete is out, but for a different reason. > I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate. No one is going to win that doesn't understand that campaigns are about moving the electorate, not finding whether they are already are (from which a competent opponent will move them while you are chasing them.)
kelnos 2y ago
I (straight guy) unfortunately agree. I hope he runs, at the very least to keep LGBT people visible in all types of politics, but doesn't get past the primary. As much as I hate hate hate hate this, the Democratic party needs to find a charismatic straight white man, preferably one who has served in the military, probably in his late 40s or 50s. Not someone boring (hence the "charismatic" bit), but someone who "fits the mold", has clear policy proposals on things that average voters actually care about, and doesn't present as radical or "different" in any way. This unfortunately means someone who won't push social/racial justice issues too hard (alienates white/religious/older people), won't be too science-focused (alienates voters without college degrees) and who will mainly focus on the economy and health care (what people actually claim to care about when making voting decisions), and at least make the right kinds of noises about crime and immigration (even though their impact on those things is somewhat limited as president). Maybe someone like Mark Kelly would fit the bill, I dunno.
- wavemode 2y ago
  The Democrats don't need a white man, nor someone who served in the military or anything of that sort. People who think this are also living in a bubble. Obama wasn't elected via magic spell. Democrats just need someone, anyone, who actually has the support of their own party. The last two times they ran someone like that, they won. The last two times they ran someone who either didn't win a primary, or who won a rigged one, they lost. This feels like Politics 101 yet the party would rather make it about race and gender (not hard to see why - because it helps distract from the party leadership's mistakes and need for replacement...)

almostgotcaught 2y ago

> gay man i think you're wrong and i certainly don't live in a bubble. but the reason i think you're wrong is not that america is progressive enough accept a gay man but because he's basically not gay; he's absolutely the least gay presenting man in the history of gay presenting men (exaggerating a little). he has no lisp, not an ounce of flamboyancy, nothing, zilch, nada. I'm aware he's fully out and there are photos of him with his husband and child and etc. he's also young, handsome, ivy-league educated, was an officer in the military and deployed, intelligent, extremely well-spoken, and charismatic (not to mention experienced but who cares about such trivial things). he has all of the qualities that made obama successful in 2008 just swap black->gay. most importantly, and i'm not flaunting this: he's a man. so i do hope he runs because he i think he has a better chance than bernie or kamala or walz or newsom or hakeem or aoc. but hey we all know there won't be an election in 2028 anyway so what are we even talking about here lol.

tsimionescu 2y ago
I wonder if he'd "dedicate another apse in his cathedral mind" [0] to trying to find out. The amount and shamelessness of sycophancy that modern American politicians cultivate is staggering (Trump being the chief example, of course - but seeing this with someone as relatively obscure as Pete is also spectacular). [0] https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-interview-god-beer-electric-mustang/ https://www.wired.com/story/pete-buttigieg-interview-god-bee...
kelnos 2y ago
I really don't think any of that matters. "He can pass for straight" is not going to sway much of anyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. Sure, some voters would be more comfortable with Buttigieg than with, say, a flamboyantly gay man, but overall I don't see the electorate going for him.
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  You're missing the key point of my claim: in 2008 you could literally take your comment, replace gay with black, and it would've been just as "credible". And yet Obama was enormously popular and successful. Lots of people even made colorist remarks about him being "white passing"!

dragonwriter 2y ago

> I'm LGBT and I feel fairly confident in saying that there's no way in hell America will elect a gay man in my lifetime. I think its much more likely that America would elect a gay man than any member of the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party. Which, I mean, still means Pete is out, but for a different reason. > I think that Democrats that believe a Pete win is possible live in a bubble. Their views are invalid until they travel the States more to increase their exposure to the rest of the electorate. No one is going to win that doesn't understand that campaigns are about moving the electorate, not finding whether they are already are (from which a competent opponent will move them while you are chasing them.)

kelnos 2y ago

I (straight guy) unfortunately agree. I hope he runs, at the very least to keep LGBT people visible in all types of politics, but doesn't get past the primary. As much as I hate hate hate hate this, the Democratic party needs to find a charismatic straight white man, preferably one who has served in the military, probably in his late 40s or 50s. Not someone boring (hence the "charismatic" bit), but someone who "fits the mold", has clear policy proposals on things that average voters actually care about, and doesn't present as radical or "different" in any way. This unfortunately means someone who won't push social/racial justice issues too hard (alienates white/religious/older people), won't be too science-focused (alienates voters without college degrees) and who will mainly focus on the economy and health care (what people actually claim to care about when making voting decisions), and at least make the right kinds of noises about crime and immigration (even though their impact on those things is somewhat limited as president). Maybe someone like Mark Kelly would fit the bill, I dunno.

wavemode 2y ago
The Democrats don't need a white man, nor someone who served in the military or anything of that sort. People who think this are also living in a bubble. Obama wasn't elected via magic spell. Democrats just need someone, anyone, who actually has the support of their own party. The last two times they ran someone like that, they won. The last two times they ran someone who either didn't win a primary, or who won a rigged one, they lost. This feels like Politics 101 yet the party would rather make it about race and gender (not hard to see why - because it helps distract from the party leadership's mistakes and need for replacement...)